SOCOM commander speaks before Congress on the state of Special Operations in modern warfare

Army General Raymond A. Thomas, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, appeared before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities on Tuesday to discuss SOCOM’s role in modern warfare 30 years after its inception. According to the General, SOCOM is more relevant than ever when it comes to addressing the evolving security threats faced by the United States and its allies around the globe.

“We have been at the forefront of national security operations for the past three decades, to include continuous combat over the past 15-and-a-half years,” Thomas told the House subcommittee. “This historic period has been the backdrop for some of our greatest successes, as well as the source of our greatest challenge, which is the sustained readiness of this magnificent force.”

General Thomas explained to the subcommittee that April was a particularly difficult month for SOCOM, as it saw the loss of three elite war fighters in combat operations in Afghanistan. Army Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar died on April 8th from injuries he suffered in a firefight in Nangarhar province, Afghanistan, and Army Rangers Sgt. Joshua P. Rodgers and Sgt. Cameron H. Thomas died on April 27th in a raid that took place in Nangarhar as well.

“This comes on the heels of 16 other combat fatalities since I assumed command a year ago, and is a stark reminder that we are a command at war and will remain so for the foreseeable future,” Thomas said.

The general then provided an in-depth breakdown of the forces that fall under SOCOM, which include approximately “56,000 active duty, 7,400 reserve and guard, and 6,600 civilian personnel across the Special Operations Forces enterprise.” Of those listed, approximately 8,000 members of America’s special operations forces are currently serving abroad, working with “international, interagency and Defense Department partners in support of the geographic combatant commanders’ priorities,” the general explained.

The SOCOM Commander also laid out the storied command’s priorities, which places defeating Islamic terrorism at the forefront of the ongoing battle strategy, but also includes “countering Russian aggression, preparing for contingencies in Korea and various security operations to defend the homeland,” Thomas said.

Beyond those combat responsibilities, the general also addressed continuous priorities within the command, such as ensuring the training, equipment, and strategies employed by special operations groups continue to transform in the face of new challenges in order to remain effective and relevant. He also spoke to the importance of taking care of “the command’s people and their families.”

The hearing, which was titled, “Three Decades Later: A Review and Assessment of Our Special Operations Forces 30 Years After the Creation of U.S. Special Operations Command,” also included testimony from Theresa Whelan, the acting assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict.

As has been in the case in a number of instances when senior military leadership has been asked to speak before Congress, the future, according to General Thomas and assistant Secretary Whelan, comes down to money. Whelen, whose role within the Defense Department finds her providing policy oversight for special operations, explained to the subcommittee that the modern threats faced by SOCOM call for greater levels of coordination and collaboration both internally and externally than ever before. In order to meet that challenge, however, funding must be consistent and sustained.

Many military officials have repeatedly requested increases in defense spending since 2013, when a series of financial limits referred to as sequestration saw significant limits placed on the funds made available to the military. In the years since, the American armed forces have faced serious maintenance delays and financial setbacks that have prevented them from keeping the force at the level of readiness many believe would be required to face a near-peer level opponent like China or Russia.

In order to continue to be successful, Whelan said, “A long-term strategic approach is needed to defeat terrorists and their networks and ideologies.” According to her, that approach is not possible without “sustained funding and flexible legislative authorities.”

“We will win the fight against [violent extremist organizations] and protect our citizens’ vital interest, allies and partners,” she concluded.

About the Author

Alex Hollings
Alex Hollings served as an active duty Marine for six and a half years before being medically retired from service. As an athlete, Hollings has raced exotic cars, played Marine Corps football and college rugby, fought in cages, and even wrestled alligators. As a scholar, he has earned a master’s degree in Communications from Southern New Hampshire University, as well as undergraduate degrees in Corporate and Organizational Communications and Business Management.

Comments

To comment on this article please join/login.
Here's a sample of the comments on this post.

Susan B

It will be interesting to see what is in the new defense budget...and what is left out!

KEV

The current dilemma of Afghanistan War and the increased numbers of military forces will it resolve the corruption within part of the Afghanistan Army and civil society? Doubt it very much with China and Russia supporting the Taliban through military and other assets.They see the Taliban will take over not ignoring the mineral resources. ISIS being supported by elements in Pakistan .and India with the circuit in the Middle Eastern and in Asia. Agree let the Taliban and ISIS kill each other,
Its looking like thousands more of forces will be needed in future if want Afghanistan a democracy. Remember the how lives were lost during the British Indian Army Campaigns on the Northern Frontier its revolving door of conflict. However, walking away will lead to a blood bath and blowback will increase in the West.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2015/03/17/108613/tackling-corruption-in-afghanistan-its-now-or-never/

Michelle B

Heh heh heh "a *near-peer* level opponent like China or Russia"....our arrogant confidence will never cease to delight my soul.
So what does Whelan mean by "flexible legislative authorities"? Is that like, Dude, you should just declare war already so the Exec Branch can do its thing? or, Dude, stop making us come in for these Armed Services Committee hearings and just release the money already? 'Cause last I read, the joint resolution of Congress authorizing the current use of military force is pretty dang flexible, remarkably succinct, and ridiculously broad:
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Arguably, that doesn't exactly cover some of the new terrorists in town, so *maybe* Whelan is asking Congress for a new AUMF? Although Obama didn't seem to have any problem interpreting the old AUMF to encompass ISIS et al....